O'Donnell thought she had scored points because the specific words "separation of church and state" do not specifically appear in the Constitution, so under the rules of Radical Republican Teabagger Logic, she had landed a zinger. The idea that the separation of church and state is implicit in the First Amendment, which is why Jefferson wrote what he did in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (which is where the words "wall of separation between church and state" do appear), is beyond most radical Republicans.

Same thing with the right to privacy. There would be no Fourth Amendment nor first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment without an implicit understanding on the part of the authors that there was privacy which needed protection in the first place. Implicit understanding of anything is completely beyond teabagger types.

The media are calling this a "gaffe," but it's not so much a gaffe as a sort of cultural disconnect: it's commonly held among Evangelicals that separation of church and state doesn't appear in the constitution, that the concept is a distortion of the founders' intent created later by the liberal courts. I don't think this a case of mere ignorance.

i had the same thought when i watched the video, which is why i was surprised that everyone was focusing on the first amendment/separation of church and state bit. everyone seems to be skipping over (& indeed, the video posted in the first post has edited out) the part where she showed off her ignorance of other parts of the constitution.

o'donnell was asked about the tea partiers' movement to repeal the 14th, 16th, & 17th amendment. she had to ask the questioner to "remind" her of what the amendments were. she had an answer for the 17th, but had no idea what the others were.

christine o'donnell wrote:

i’m sorry i didn’t bring my constitution with me. fortunately senators don’t have to memorize the constitution. can you remind me of what the other ones are?

he told her what the 14th was, then said "i think you should know what the 16th amendment is" -- & she gave him a blank stare, so he told her that one too.

i’m sorry i didn’t bring my constitution with me. fortunately senators don’t have to memorize the constitution. can you remind me of what the other ones are?

he told her what the 14th was, then said "i think you should know what the 16th amendment is" -- & she gave him a blank stare, so he told her that one too.

Sigh...... this was my point. I realize that not all senators might not be constitutional scholars- but come on...... I don't know how can you hope to "legislate" when you don't even understand the basic fundamentals of the law.

Sigh...... this was my point. I realize that not all senators might not be constitutional scholars- but come on...... I don't know how can you hope to "legislate" when you don't even understand the basic fundamentals of the law.

Additionally, as I understand it the Tea Party people would like to bring the country back to the Constitution, or something like that. They continue to hold up a piece of paper as sacred, but refuse to learn what in on that paper or to understand what that paper stemmed from.

I'm waiting for someone to ask Christine O'Donnell what she thinks she's doing running for office when the Constitution makes no mention of women's voting rights. I mean, if she's serious about a return to the Constitution (even if they include the original 10 amendments), she has no business being in politics.

_________________A pie eating contest is a battle with no losers. - amandabear